Document Type : Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

2 Prof., Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Following the applications filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands on 24 April 2014, in the International Court of Justice instituting proceedings against the United Kingdom, India, and Pakistan, with a claim that they did not fulfill their international obligations under Article 6 of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its corresponding customary international law obligations, the Court's judgement on jurisdiction was issued on 5 October 2016. Despite the fact that this case was the first time that the court could specifically assess the precise meaning of the obligations raised in article 6 and their customary status, it did not enter into the merits with the Court's judgement on the absence of a legal justiciable dispute between the parties. This article surveys the reasonableness and justification of this decision by two logical and sociological methodologies. According to the authors, the Court, by prescribing a new, formal and unprecedented criterion that requires the “notice” of the existence of a dispute at the time of filing an application, loosed a golden opportunity to international law development through clarifying the obligations of nuclear-weapon States and crystallizing the scope of the concept of international community as a whole. Hiding behind the veil of “judicial formalism”, the court seems again revealed the fundamental and continuance influence of the logic of power on international law.

Keywords

۱. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. الهویی‌ نظری، حمید (۱۳۸۹)، رویکرد انسانی در آرای دیوان بین‌الملل دادگستری، چ اول، تهران: دادگستر.
2. داوید، رنه؛ کامی‌ژوفره اسپینوزی (۱۳۸۷)، درآمدی بر حقوق تطبیقی و دو نظام بزرگ حقوقی معاصر، ترجمة سید حسین صفایی، تهران: دادگستر.
3. سادات‌میدانی، سید حسین (۱۳۸۸)، دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری؛ ادلة اثبات دعوی، ج 3، تهران: جنگل.
4. شاملو، سوده (۱۳۹۳)، نسبیت احکام دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری، تهران: انتشارات شهر دانش.
5. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (۱۳۹۰)، صلح جاویدان و حکومت قانون؛ دیالکتیک همانندی و تفاوت، تهران: فرهنگ نشر نو.
6. ----------------- (۱۳۹۶)، سیر عقل در منظومة حقوق بین‌الملل؛ اصول اساسی روش‌شناسی حقوق بین‌الملل، تهران: نشر نو.
7. میرعباسی، عباس؛ سادات‌میدانی، سید حسین (۱۳۹۳)، دیوان بین‌الملل دادگستری در تئوری و عمل، چ پنجم، تهران: جنگل.
 
ب) مقالات
8. شاملو، سوده (1392)، «نقش دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در توسعة حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامة پژوهش حقوق عمومی، سال پانزدهم، ش 41.
9. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (۱۳۷۳)، «تحولات دادگستری بین‌المللی»، مجلة تحقیقات حقوقی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ش۱۵.
10. -------------- (بهار ۱۳۷۳ و ۱۳۷۴)، «نابرابری دولت‌ها در قبول و اجرای معاهده عدم گسترش سلاح‌های هسته‌ای؛ تصورات و واقعیات»، مجلة حقوقی، ش ۱۸ و ۱۹.
11. --------------- (۱۳۷۰)، «روش‌های شناخت حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، بهار و تابستان، ش ۹.
12.  --------------- (بهار و تابستان ۱۳۷۱)، «روش‌های شناخت حقوق بین‌الملل؛ شناخت منطقی حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجلة تحقیقات حقوقی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، بهار و تابستان، ش ۱۰.
 
 
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
13. Bedjaoui, Mohammed, (1991), International Law: Achievements and Prospects, Dordrecht Boston London: Martinus Nijhoff Publ.
14. Collier, John & Vaughan Lowe, (2000), the Settlement of Disputes in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Dawson, Mark; De Witte, Bruno & Muir, Elise, (2013), Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
16. Danilenko, G.M (1993), Lawmaking in the International Community, Dordrecht Boston London: Martinus Nijhoff Publ.
17. Kolb, Robert, (2013), the International Court of Justice, Oxford; Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
18. Lauterpacht, Hersch, (1982), the Development of International Law by the International Courts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Rosenne, Shabtai, (2006), The Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920-2005, Leiden, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publ(4th ed).
20. Zimmermann, Andrea (2006), the statute of the international court of justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press
 
B) Articles
21. Bendor, A. L, (1997), “Are There any Limits to the Justiciability? The Jurisprudence and Constitutional Controversy in Light of the Israel and American Experience”, Indian International & Comparative Law Review7.2.
22. Jennings, R, (1992), “The Role of The International Court of Justice In The Development of International Environmental Law,” Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 1.3.
23. Buchanan, A & Golove, D, (2002), “Philosophy of international law”, in Scott Shapiro and Jules Coleman, The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 
C) Cases
24. Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep, 2016.
25. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide(Croatia v. Serbia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 2008.
26. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1996 (II).
27. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 2011 (I)
28. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, I.C.J Rep 1988.
29. Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v. Poland), Jurisdiction, Judgment, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 6, 1925.
30. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1992.
31. Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 2005.
32. East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1995.
33. Interpretation of peace treaties with Bulgaria, Hungry and Romania, First phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Rep 1950.
34. Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory of Chorzów), Judgment No 11, P.C.I.J, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 13.
35. Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1998.
36. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Rep 1996 (I).
37. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. United Kingdom), Jurisdiction, Judgment, P. C. I. J (1924), Series A, No 2.
38. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1984.
39. Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italyv. France, United Kingdom and United States of America), Preliminary Question, I.C.J. Rep 1954.
40. Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1963.
41. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France and New Zealand v. France), I.C.J Rep 1995.
42. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France) Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 1974.
43. Nuclear Tests (New Zealandv. France) Judgment I.C.J. Rep 1974.
44. Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Judgement, I.C.J. Rep, 2016.
45. Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 2012 (II).
46. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), I.C.J. Rep 1950.
47. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep 2009.
48. South West Africa case (Ethiopia v. Sought Africa and Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J Rep 1962.
49. South West Africa Case (Liberia V.South Africa &Ethiopia V. South Africa), Second Phase, I.C.J Rep 1966.
50. The Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belgiumv. Bulgaria), Preliminary Objection, 1939, P.C.I.J., Series. A/B, No. 7.
51. Eur. Court HR, 1978Ser. A, Vol.25, at 62.
 
D) Documents
52. International Court of Justice Constitution
53. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
54. Memorial of the Marshall Islands (MMI)
55. Preliminary Objections of the United Kingdom (POUK)
56. Response dated 23 March 2016 of the United Kingdom to the questions by Judge Cançado Trindade.
57. Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), 2016, Separate opinion of judges Tomka, Owada, Bhandari, Sebutinde.
58. ----------------, Dissenting opinion of judges Crawford, Bennouna, Robinson, Trinidad, Usof.
59. ----------------, Declarations of judges Abraham, Donoghue, Gaja, Xue.